law and ob notes

law and ob notes - Read: Steven Lukes: Power a Radical View...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Read: Steven Lukes: Power a Radical View February 1, 2007 Rooster4242@gmail.com Ross Mk_gilmore@yahoo.com Michael Send Kurt a copy of today’s notes cause he won’t be here. Begin w/ Nagel: Nagel: basic approach to ethics, is huge in political and philo of mind. Scanlon: political ob, major theory of moral and political philo Dworkin: philo of law, colleague of Nagel, Law’s Empire, the nature of law, interpretation of law, how do we interpret laws, constitution, judges… he attempts to show that legal interpretation is just negating what the black letter law says. Make sure the reading for each section is done prior to class, Dr. K, may actually use a little Socratic method on us. Background on Nagel: The direction he takes on the foundation of ethics, moral principles place requirements upon human action. They place rational requirements. It would therefore be irrational for us to ignore these principles. Ethics places demands upon us in a rational manner. He conceives of ethics as a sub-discipline of psychology. Pg 5 The motivational factor behind what they are doing. Can a moral principle motivate us? N says that they are necessary for practicing rational action. Altruism: selflessness, giving of oneself to others. In order to practice altruism, one must think themselves as an individual (I), but must also reciprocally acknowledge someone else. (very much like Fichte’s understanding from Germ. Pol. Philo) This allows N to show how one can be motivated by altruistic principles. One has to look at themselves in a way that is not filtered from seeing things purely through my own perspective. This view raises initial problems. Moral demands are inescapable. We must be capable of being influenced by these motives. N. How do we make moral demands, ethical demands, inescapable if we adopt the following strategy, claim that everyone ought to adhere to certain principles, b/c those principles are connected to some influence on us by, which all of us are capable of being influenced in some way? The problem w/ empirical science is that we can tell what is the case and what could have been the case, but it can never tell me what must be the case. Any explanation of basic ethical principles must provide some account of how we are motivated to adhere to the principles. He has a broader view of motivational theory, it is not simply empirical, this is why he delves into metaphysics a tad. N: any norm or moral requirement, must have some “something” that motivates us. Being motivated by these principles is a necessary requirement for rational behavior. He is not suggesting any determinism. He just says that the motive is as inescapable as the moral principle.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Internalism vs. Externalism Externalism: the motivation comes from outside the ethical principles; some additional psychological component, or demand, over and above the ethical principles. Internalism: the motivation stems from either the truth or the meaning of moral
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/17/2008 for the course PHIL taught by Professor Kinlaw during the Fall '05 term at McMurry.

Page1 / 18

law and ob notes - Read: Steven Lukes: Power a Radical View...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online